Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Women in Combat

I don't make a habit of weighing on in on veteran/military debates, as I have never donned the uniform. The women in combat debate is a unique one, and I find myself in agreement with many points on both sides. There was a girl at my gym that looked like a Viking. She was almost 6' and could bench press more than many of the men that worked out there. So what if a combat unit had a choice between her and a man that was 5'6" in Engineer boots and weighed 145 soaking wet?

I've read TONS on this from both perspectives...probably more than most due to other ventures I'm involved with. Though there have been quite a number of compelling arguments (and you all know that deep down I am a raging Femi-Nazi), I have settled upon the following as the most informative, rational and succinct. Something about her tale struck a familiar chord with me. I wanted to be a cop. Well, I wanted to apply for the FBI and needed 2 years as a cop. I am small, but fancy myself to be a pretty tough chick. I will throw myself in front of a puck without a second thought (Did I tell you all I'm playing ice hockey now?) and I would "die trying" before ever giving up... But, is that enough? Why die trying if someone else could do it without dying? I saw an episode of Cops (or a similar show) where an officer was shot because his partner (a bad ass Black chick) couldn't control the suspect and a male officer finally came in and subdued him with minimal effort. She was tough, but she was small. No training could amend that... It was that day I abandoned my law enforcement aspirations. I didn't think it was fair to endanger a partner as a means to an end...and I think that is why this article resonated with me so strongly:

"I’m a female veteran. I deployed to Anbar Province, Iraq. When I was active duty, I was 5’6, 130 pounds, and scored nearly perfect on my PFTs. I naturally have a lot more upper body strength than the average woman: not only can I do pull-ups, I can meet the male standard. I would love to have been in the infantry. And I still think it will be an unmitigated disaster to incorporate women into combat roles. I am not interested in risking men’s lives so I can live my selfish dream.

We’re not just talking about watering down the standards to include the politically correct number of women into the unit. This isn’t an issue of “if a woman can meet the male standard, she should be able to go into combat.” The number of women that can meet the male standard will be miniscule–I’d have a decent shot according to my PFTs, but dragging a 190-pound man in full gear for 100 yards would DESTROY me–and that miniscule number that can physically make the grade AND has the desire to go into combat will be facing an impossible situation that will ruin the combat effectiveness of the unit. First, the close quarters of combat units make for a complete lack of privacy and EVERYTHING is exposed, to include intimate details of bodily functions. Second, until we succeed in completely reprogramming every man in the military to treat women just like men, those men are going to protect a woman at the expense of the mission. Third, women have physical limitations that no amount of training or conditioning can overcome. Fourth, until the media in this country is ready to treat a captured/raped/tortured/mutilated female soldier just like a man, women will be targeted by the enemy without fail and without mercy.

I saw the male combat units when I was in Iraq. They go outside the wire for days at a time. They eat, sleep, urinate and defecate in front of each other and often while on the move. There’s no potty break on the side of the road outside the wire. They urinate into bottles and defecate into MRE bags. I would like to hear a suggestion as to how a woman is going to urinate successfully into a bottle while cramped into a humvee wearing full body armor. And she gets to accomplish this feat with the male members of her combat unit twenty inches away. Volunteers to do that job? Do the men really want to see it? Should they be forced to?

Everyone wants to point to the IDF as a model for gender integration in the military. No, the IDF does not put women on the front lines. They ran into the same wall the US is about to smack into: very few women can meet the standards required to serve there. The few integrated units in the IDF suffered three times the casualties of the all-male units because the Israeli men, just like almost every other group of men on the planet, try to protect the women even at the expense of the mission. Political correctness doesn’t trump thousands of years of evolution and societal norms. Do we really WANT to deprogram that instinct from men?

Regarding physical limitations, not only will a tiny fraction of women be able to meet the male standard, the simple fact is that women tend to be shorter than men. I ran into situations when I was deployed where I simply could not reach something. I wasn’t tall enough. I had to ask a man to get it for me. I can’t train myself to be taller. Yes, there are small men…but not so nearly so many as small women. More, a military PFT doesn’t measure the ability to jump. Men, with more muscular legs and bones that carry more muscle mass than any woman can condition herself to carry, can jump higher and farther than women. That’s why we have a men’s standing jump and long jump event in the Olympics separate from women. When you’re going over a wall in Baghdad that’s ten feet high, you have to be able to be able to reach the top of it in full gear and haul yourself over. That’s not strength per se, that’s just height and the muscular explosive power to jump and reach the top. Having to get a boost from one of the men so you can get up and over could get that man killed.

Without pharmaceutical help, women just do not carry the muscle mass men do. That muscle mass is also a shock absorber. Whether it’s the concussion of a grenade going off, an IED, or just a punch in the face, a woman is more likely to go down because she can’t absorb the concussion as well as a man can. And I don’t care how the PC forces try to slice it, in hand-to-hand combat the average man is going to destroy the average woman because the average woman is smaller, period. Muscle equals force in any kind of strike you care to perform. That’s why we don’t let female boxers face male boxers.

Lastly, this country and our military are NOT prepared to see what the enemy will do to female POWs. The Taliban, AQ, insurgents, jihadis, whatever you want to call them, they don’t abide by the Geneva Conventions and treat women worse than livestock. Google Thomas Tucker and Kristian Menchaca if you want to see what they do to our men (and don’t google it unless you have a strong stomach) and then imagine a woman in their hands. How is our 24/7 news cycle going to cover a captured, raped, mutilated woman? After the first one, how are the men in the military going to treat their female comrades? ONE Thomasina Tucker is going to mean the men in the military will move heaven and earth to protect women, never mind what it does to the mission. I present you with Exhibit A: Jessica Lynch. Male lives will be lost trying to protect their female comrades. And the people of the US are NOT, based on the Jessica Lynch episode, prepared to treat a female POW the same way they do a man.

I say again, I would have loved to be in the infantry. I think I could have done it physically, I could’ve met almost all the male standards (jumping aside), and I think I’m mentally tough enough to handle whatever came. But I would never do that to the men. I would never sacrifice the mission for my own desires. And I wouldn’t be able to live with myself if someone died because of me.

Though I agree with Sentry's assessment...I believe that instead of belittling and mocking their sisters that want to die equally along side them, veteran and enlisted men should be celebrating their determination and willingness to give their lives for their fellow soldiers/marines.

The stats she quoted about the IDF really tell the story to me: integrated units suffered casualty rates 3 times that of all-male units. I've been looking for stats just like that to back up my personal belief that mixed infantry units are just not a good idea, for many reasons.

I want all of our soldiers to have the greatest chance of coming home alive and unharmed. That means all-male infantry, imho.

I don't think I'd celebrate someone wanted to get people killed for a social agenda. I disagree with the writers assessment that men can't watch women die. But I do agree... the ladies just aren't there physically and never can be.

Further, I can't stand it when people talk about the physical fitness test. Firstly, because a handful of women can meet or exceed the minimum physical standard for the weakest of men, most of whom aren't even infantrymen doesn't impress me. Obviously in the infantry, we have a physical test every day called a work day and I promise it very seriously exceeds a minimum passing score on the PFT. When you brought up the 146 pound guy, those dudes don't last very long in the grunts. They get kicked out of the military for not being able to keep up when running with the pack. Show me a woman who can MAX OUT the male USMC physical fitness test, and perhaps we can talk. Oh, and she needs to be able to do that after a 20 mile march carrying what for her will be 120% of her body weight.

I'm not interested in minimum standards. I started thinking up ways to chapter out my Soldiers and Marines who scored the minimum and fell out of any organized event of god forbid a training or combat mission. Actually for failing a mission event, I didn't think up the way to chapter. I had one at that point.

My prediction? Unless standards are woefully lowered every single female in the infantry will receive an other than honorable discharge for not being able to keep up with the guys. Dishonorable for those who fail a mission.

I don't think she's saying that men "can't" watch women die... just that it is ingrained in us that men are the protector of women and children. It is also ingrained in soldiers that you're a team, and you protect your teammates. If the female is the weak link in your team, everyone is at risk. That's a risk I'm not willing to take.

Saying that women are already in combat because there are no front lines anymore, or pointing out that they drive trucks in hostile territory is like saying that someone who walks around the neighborhood a lot is the same as someone who hikes the Appalacian Trail everyday for 6 months.

I have a problem with the fools that even suggest the idea.Yeah, yeah, I know, if you're so smart why ain't ya rich?I think everyone but the moron children will agree that Israel needs an effective military far more than most countries, and sweeps in every breathing body that they can get.I also think that most agree that the Joos are very disposed to the buying the ideas of the left/liberal crowd, and so would have badly wanted the idea of mixed sex combat units to succeed.Should the fact that the IDF tried and then rejected the mixed sex combat units several wars ago have kept the idea from even being suggested here?Oh, I forgot. We have the Marxocrats in charge now, and they have not yet finished destroying the country.

I have thought for years what "test" would approximate being an infantrymen and after 13 years I can tell you- there isn't one. Every day is a test and you have to pass that test every day. You have to pass it sick, you sometimes have to pass it with broken bones. Sometimes with a gunshot wound. I think the Navy SEALS have one thing right. They say "Its pays to win," and "Never be last."

Just to add to the limited info coming from the media: I recently recieved a copy of a letter that CMC sent to all flag officers (I think it has been fairly widely disceminated, I was an E6). It is a format I can't copy and post. But it says that CMC #36 "will have three years of collected data and ground truth to consider as he makes his final recommendation." So this is not a decided issue at this point.

I served in an Armor unit. Were there some positions where a woman could serve as well as a man? Sure. About three enlisted positions on the TO&E. A woman as a loader would be catastrophic with modern main guns. In a good crew, the loader needs to wrestle a 22 kg (48 lb.) main gun round (M1A1 through M1A3) into the breach in two seconds or less. Longer, and the gunner will be waiting on the loader before firing. Note that the loader cries: "Up" when the gun is loaded and they are out from behind the gun. Good loaders never get more than their arms behind the gun.

What about other positions? During routine--or not so routine--maintenance on the tank requires major upper body and leg strength. A breaker bar is basically a crowbar designed for tanks. Given the right surface, a crewman can lift the tank with a breaker bar, and sometimes needs to. Forget strength, if you don't weigh enough you can't do it.

So yes, a tank crew with one lightweight crewman can still be functional, it requires a shifting of duties. Two such crewmembers, or a crewman on an officer's tank? Oops. Good tank commanders whether enlisted or officers are not afraid to get their hands dirty. But officers need to spend time in combat on command responsibilities.

BTW, there are some combat jobs that women are more suited for. Fighter pilot is one. I'm too tall to be a fighter pilot, although I could qualify as a trash hauler (non-combat pilot).

The economics and waste of time to find the one woman of 1000 is not worth the disruption to the system. A friend of mine was in the Army Infantry in Vietnam. I asked him if he had met or knew any woman who could have done what he did for a solid year when he was a 19 year old. The answer was a big NO!

Too many dreamers out there. The game of war will never change. It's not coed volleyball!

I agree with Ala in the point that we all should give the respect and support to anyone who wishes to join the military.

However, like all things, that respect has to be continually maintained and earned by those people while they are IN the military.

That means doing the job you are given and doing it well.

Do I think Women can perform in Combat? Yes. In select instances.

As has been mentioned, being a Pilot is one. Probably the main one. Stick a girl in a fixed defensive position where all she has to do is fire her weapon?... yeah I think a lot of women would be able to do that.

Walk around with nothing but your weapon, a few magazines of ammo and some water for an hour or two? Yeah, pretty much most people can do that.

But the problem is, that is not the vast majority of jobs in Combat Arms: Infantry, Tanks, Artillery etc etc.

Those jobs are a day in, day out absolute grind on a person, both physcially and mentally.

Until you've humped 80 lbs of gear plus weapons plus spare ammo for days on days at a time, week after week. You just cannot fathom what that takes and what it does to you. Then mix in the fact you have to perform your job function with proficiency. IE: hump 20 miles with all your gear then be able to assault a fortified position like you just got out of bed.

Run 5 miles with all your gear and then engage the enemy.

Be able to make sound tactical decisions while exhausted from running said 5 miles with all your gear so you can accomplish the mission and not get any of your people killed.

Ladies, you know I love you. But... you all just CANNOT hang in the combat arms.

I'd be willing to bet that there is probably not a single woman on the face of this earth that could last more than a year in a Line Infantry Battalion. It crushes men. It will utterly crush you.

Yes there are girls who can meet the minimum standards for males. But read that again. MINIMUM.

Believe me when I tell you this girls, any male in an infnatry unit who can only do the minimum standards? They are considerd a shitbag. You better be able to be close to the maximum in all categories. At least in the Marines, part of your score to get promoted is based on your Physical Fitness test score. Just doing the minimum? That's not going to cut it. At all.

So you have to ask yourself... of the women who join the military, how many of them have the ability to meet at least middle of the road male fitness standards, which in my opinion is the very least you need to be to be the least bit effective in the Infantry? Very very verrrrrry few.

Of those women who can, how many actually WANT to be in the Infantry?

My guess would be so few that its really not worth making the change.

So really, what this comes down to as Free stated, it is a very sad attempt by a few femi-nazis in the military who are butthurt about promotions. It actually sickens me that this very small minority of women view it soley as a means of getting promoted faster. So ladies again I ask you, if your son is in a Marine Infantry Battalion, who do you want next to him? Little miss susie who cant even carry her own gear or a normal healthy male who will be able to pull your son to safety if he gets hit?

I know your answer. You know your answer. Let's put a stop to this ridiculous notion of women being capable of performing in a Combat Arms unit.

Free0352’s “I don't think I'd celebrate someone wanted to get people killed for a social agenda.” characterizes the proponents exactly.

I’d say that Zelda’s ”If it makes the unit stronger, let them in. If it doesn’t, keep them out. It doesn’t seem that tough an issue” and PaulJ’s“The economics and waste of time to find the one woman of 1000 is not worth the disruption to the system” tie for saying it the most succinctly.

Jpck20’s ”Let's put a stop to this ridiculous notion of women being capable of performing in a Combat Arms unit.” echos my sentiments exactly.

Keep the military strong and it's less likely anyone will be in harms' way.

Considering we have the strongest military in the world, and also are involved in more wars than any nation, I don't think the evidence supports this assertion. I don't think any strength military would have prevented 9/11, or Afghanistan. If you take Bin Laden's word, our military intervention in Iraq was a driving force in spawning the extremism that resulted in 9/11.

Considering we have the strongest military in the world, and also are involved in more wars than any nation, I don't think the evidence supports this assertion.

Nonsense. You don't have any historical perspective. The world has been far more peaceful since the rise of the US military. I know you think any conflict that occurs during your lifetime is just the worst war in the entire world, but it actually isn't.

I don't think any strength military would have prevented 9/11, or Afghanistan.

Nope. Because we're dealing with religious psychotics who don't operate on the same plane of logic or morality as anyone else. But that's no reason to weaken the military. You need it to kill those people as well as persuade disgruntled, yet more logical foes that starting shit isn't a good idea.

If you take Bin Laden's word, our military intervention in Iraq was a driving force in spawning the extremism that resulted in 9/11.

bin Laden was a psychopath - not unlike a school shooter. He had no shortage of nutbag excuses. Assholes like him are the price we pay for maintaining a relatively peaceful world.

nate, can you for once try to focus and stay on topic? I mean is it that hard to read the post, understand what it is talking about, take in the comments on it and try to keep on the same page? Really is it nate?

Nit is suseptable to leftitst/pacifist propaganda because he is the progeney of the generation that that retreated into flower power and/or Communisim in their early twenties when they finally realised that there is no Santa Clause or Tooth Fairy.Since he literally acquired his liberal religion on his mother's knee, odds are he will remain a nitwit all his life

I think Nate is just one of the many "moderate" ignorants infesting the electorate. Self-absorbed and ignorant of history, constantly appealing to authority instead of reason, yet because he isn't actually on welfare, thinks he's part of the intellectual elite.

Nonsense. You don't have any historical perspective. The world has been far more peaceful since the rise of the US military. I know you think any conflict that occurs during your lifetime is just the worst war in the entire world, but it actually isn't.

Well, I can agree that we've had less world wars after the rise of the U.S. military. However much of this can be attributed to the consequences of nuclear weapons, not conventional military strength. Once a power obtains significant nuclear weapons, it becomes immune to existential aggression.

Anyway, looking through history it seems likes the US was pretty warlike prior to the 1940s, including all of the wars against the Native Americans, War of 1812, etc.

Well, I can agree that we've had less world wars after the rise of the U.S. military. However much of this can be attributed to the consequences of nuclear weapons, not conventional military strength.

Am I hearing this correctly? Nate attributing relative peace to the acquisition of nuclear weapons? What then, is your rationale for supporting Obama's planned reductions?

Anyway, looking through history it seems likes the US was pretty warlike prior to the 1940s, including all of the wars against the Native Americans, War of 1812, etc.

We didn't have anything like a strong military until after WWII, so you just proved my point. The Native Americans were pretty war-prone themselves, and in 1812, Great Britain attacked us because we were weak.

Please explain to me how a nuclear arsenal is going to help us fight terrorists who often embed themselves in friendly populations? Mohammad Atta learned to fly in Venice, Florida. Should we nuke Florida? What about Pakistan, Lebannon, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, the UAE, North Africa, Indonesia? Seriously? Are you high Nate?

I don't think you need a lot of nukes to maintain stability. Maybe a hundred could assure MAD. The few thousand we have now are just a waste of money, and also represent a security risk in itself.

Free, In a very twisted sense I don't think nuking the entire middle east and Pakistan would result in meaningful detriment to the rest of humanity. However I suspect Indonesia, and North Africa would be pretty concerned at that point, and we would be shunned by the world.

I'm not convinced that conventional forces are a meaningful tool against terrorism either. It seems to me that getting into gunfights in front of innocents results in enough innocent casualties to help terrorist recruiting. It seems like invasions are a significant percentage of the problem.

Nit, by your "reasoning", all we need are a few rifles and one bullet for each of our potential enemies. That makes all our nukes, all our tanks, all our planes, all our ships and the rest unneeded, so we may just as well get rid of them.

You're such a complete dickhead that you couldn't catch on to Free0352's sarcasm.

I suppose that in your world, the courts are the most effective way to fight the terrorists. Unfortunately, if the Marxocrats saddle the military with the asinine rules of engagement they want to, you will end up being right!

Well Nate, since our nuclear arsenal nor our conventional military - in your book- can defeat Islamic radical jihadists and clearly conventional law enforcement has failed as well, I suppose our only alternative is immidiate capitulation. Maybe if we force Americans to convert to Sunni Islam as well as surrendering they might leave us alone? Oh... wait. Jihadists kill thousands of their fellow muslims for every American. Many of them fellow countrymen... so that won't work either. The way I see it, there is only one solution. We nuke ourselves! Mass national suicide. Hey, they can't attack us if we are all blown up! Remember nate, so long as we are all alive.... the terrorists have won.

Nice strawman. My reasoning is that our military should provide for the defense of our country. Not Israel. Not Western Europe, not Iraq and Saudi Arabia, not Japan and Singapore. Our military expenditures should represent the minimum necessary to accomplish these goals. Nuclear weapons represent a very effective use of defense resources.

Back when Republicans were a viable party, Eisenhauser said:

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed."

If nations wish us to defend them, they should pay us for that privilege. Otherwise they need to foot the bill for their own military. This is fairly unrealistic at the moment, but I don't understand why defense spending is the golden calf when it comes to the spending part of our fiscal situation. I don't think it sustainable that we continue to compete economically with nations that spend .05% of their nations GDP on military expenditures while we spend 4%.

Free, you should agree with me. From the libertarian's perspective, our military expenditures a) represent money we must extract from taxpayers, and b) are a tool of government oppression, in that the stronger the military, the more authoritarian our government can be without risking popular uprising. Co-opting the argument against gun control, Mao, Stalin, Saddam, Hitler and every other successful dictator agrees!

Well I suppose we could wait until a foreign army invades us before resisting. That worked so well during the 1930s! Our small military and isolationism were highly effective in preventing WWII and its horrors and millions of dead... not to mention the massive economic destruction it caused.

Well I suppose we could wait until a foreign army invades us before resisting. That worked so well during the 1930s! Our small military and isolationism were highly effective in preventing WWII and its horrors and millions of dead... not to mention the massive economic destruction it caused. Nobody could possibly attack us on our own soil.

Nit:It takes more than a few hundred nukes to obliteratea major country.I don't remember anyone ever saying that they liked the idea of military expenditure. The question is and always has been whether or not they are necessary (talk about a straw man).Your arguments expose your ignorance of both military matters and history generally. The cliché "often wrong, but never in doubt" fits you perfectly.Would you rather defend your country from the Washington city limits or from Kabul or from the middle of the Pacific?Would you rather support someone else and let them do the fighting for you or pay with our own blood?Would you rather have the war damage and civilian casualties here or somewhere else?I am starting to wonder if knot(head) is a better match than nit(wit)!

Iran is a martyr nation. The Mullahs are more than willing to sacrifice their own population for the glory of the Islamic revolution. But hey, I know. We should totally trust the safety of this planet in the faith that religious fanatics wont do anything crazy. Im sure that will work out well. And hey, if you are wrong we cqn always kill a few million innocent people with WMD if our own death toll gets to high right? Nah thats too complicated. I still say we nuke ourselves.

Really Nate? You want to entrust our national security and lives of our people to the willingness of Al'Queda leaders or the Iranian Mullahs to NOT DIE FOR ISLAM... or at least their interpretation of it.

A few thoughts on this.The move could turn people against wars after seeing what is done to our women captured. Just saying that might be a hidden goal.The move could force women who are happy with their roles into roles they did not anticipate when joining.The move could force a draft for women.That said if some individual women seek those roles and have the ability/strength they should be allowed to go that route. It is doubtful the number would be high. But remember that not all woman want to serve in this way. If forced then military enrollments for women may fall.

I don't see much of a choice in the matter. We've trusted our security to the evil empire, the Chinese communists, Pakistan, and India. None of these nations are really our friends, and some were explicit enemies. If you know history, we've demonized every nation that is opposed to our agenda, and we've considered them all irrational and different from the previous enemies. I don't think it is any different with Iran.

Each enemy is different, and each deserve to be demonized in their own right, but we've never considered them irrational. It's different when you are dealing with religious psychopathy. Consider them the Jim Jones cult with roughly half the population of Iran ready to drink the kool aid, except the kool aid is a bomb vest. It's really not a good time to weaken our military. Hopefully Obama actually knows this and doesn't hate us so much that he'll actually go through with the cuts.

The Jim Jones comparison is EXACTLY right. You are not dealing with rational people when dealing with Islamists, you are dealing with people who WANT TO DIE and take you with them.

They pray every day to die, taking the infadel with them.

No one called the communists irrational. I don't think the North Korean dictatorship is irrational. Or Burma's. Or Cuba's. Evil? Yes. Suicidal and fanatical? No. They were still making decisions based on a profit/loss analysis. Islamists don't do that. They want to lose here on Earth to win in paradise.

Killing people is insanely easy in the U.S. If the past two years have taught you anything, it is that anyone can obtain a few firearms with large clips and murder dozens of people before being taken out. Yet with somewhere between 9 and 18 million Muslims in the U.S., it doesn't happen frequently. My conclusion is that life is pretty popular, and only a very extreme few are willing to sacrifice their own lives to take others.

Unlike a bullet, you can't throw your people in front of a nuke for you.

As a leader, your life not be very cozy if your major population centers no longer exist to support the government or religious institutions. Even the extremists have been smart enough not to provide an existential threat to Israel after it obtained nukes, because of the possibility of the Samson plan.

Where do you come up with such weird ideas?? I spent the better part of my youth in an A-10A training in Germany to stop the Russian Hordes of World War III. Later I sat on a Strike line with a B-61 hanging off each wing, dedicated to blasting the bastards back to Moscow and you say it couldn't happen. Go ahead and get rid of our nukes and see how FAST it'll happen.You might wanna look up the Cold War, and while you're educating yourself, take a look at the insanity of Iran's Ayatollah back during the Iraq/Iran war. You can bet Israel has, and why I'm confident they're not long from an attack on Iran soon.

Cold War's over, but Russia's rising, so is China, and with fruit cakes like I'madinnerjacket getting Nukes, war is on the horizon.

COM, I'm just knowledgeable enough to be dangerous. Seriously though, I'm just quite cynical about the mainstream media reporting foreign events, and uncanny ability of our leaders to drive us into foreign wars that we've got no business getting involved in. Maybe it is the military-industrial complex, or maybe the world is much more dangerous than I suppose.

Tater, It seems like you wasted the better part of your youth preparing for a very unlikely event, no matter what your leaders told you. Someone commented that the "leadership has ways of convincing the populace"... Indeed they do!

Nate, you really don't know anything. There are these things called books you can read and they will tell you how hard people worked to keep you prancing around with the unicorns and fairies in your head.

Tater, It seems like you wasted the better part of your youth preparing for a very unlikely event, no matter what your leaders told you.

...says the logician who wants to dismantle the 2nd amendment over a very unlikely event...

I would bet a large sum of money Nate doesnt have the guts to tell Tater to his face that he wasted his life as a pilot.

Nate you miserable little piece of runny shit... maybe you might want to take a second and unjam Barrys cock from your mouth and try to learn something from history.

Maybe, just maybe the reason Russia never tried to expand their little empire into western europe was because *gasp* tater and the millions of men like him during the Cold War WERE THERE.

I honestly cannot believe someone can be as fucking stupid as you Nate and claim he knows something about the world.

Yuu know less than jack and shit and its painfully obvious you are one of the appeasement pussies that populate your party.

But dont worry Nate, you can cry like a little bitch as much as you want because men like us will protect you. As much as it pains me. Becuase honestly if I had the choice, I'd let the muslims that you say would never do anything rash, have you. Then I could watch on youtube what they did to you and laugh.

"Tater, It seems like you wasted the better part of your youth preparing for a very unlikely event, no matter what your leaders told you."

LOL again Nate! Ya crack me up!!

My leader (President Reagan) told me to be prepared for anything, unlike you who's prepared for nothing. But hey in your world nothing bad will ever happen so who needs the military or the second amendment...

Perhaps I did waste my youth serving on five continents, fighting in two wars and screaming across the sky in a supersonic jet fighter, but hey, not everyone can live the luxurious life of a young leftie, hanging out in Mom's basement, playing video games and popping zits! Good on ya Nate!!